Crazy nutters.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Pretty much what I got from it. Although I would say that the Presidents speech did strike me as opportunistic. I felt he should have stuck to the crisis at hand and saved his "clean energy" pitch for another time.

Dave

The Chinese character for crisis is also the character for opportunity.

John

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Boreas

The Chinese character for crisis is also the character for opportunity.

John

That's kind fo eerie, John.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

The substance if the article is deserving of criticism on it's own merits. First, it was opinion checking, rather than fact checking.

It chided the President for indicating that this type of disaster underscores the need for alternative energy, when in fact this type of disaster highlights the need to get off the oil tit.

It took issue with the President saying China was getting a head start in developing green industry, by point out that China is already a big polluter and on the way to becoming a bigger polluter. That misses the point that China in in the process of developing the capacity to compete with our start up industries that would create environmentally friendly products and alternative energy sources - that China want's to profit over our desire to improve the environment, not that it wants to improve its own.

It tried to rebut the President's statements on the Oil companies' resistance to regulations by pointing out that BP supported some of the President's environmental initiatives. Again comparing apples and oranges. The regulations that the oil companies have fought are the ones that would require them to engage in safer and more environmentally friendly practices in their own oil production, not in areas outside of their industry.

Finally, the alleged potential reserves about which the article spoke are reserves that could be tapped at tremendous environmental cost. I don't think the way around one environmental disaster is to create another one.

As I see it, the article's fact checking really only pointed out policies with which it disagreed, or misrepresented what was said. That is not fact-checking. That is hogwash.

Regards,

D-Ray

Now that's what I call a critique!!!

Myself, I thought is was an opposing viewpoint rather than hogwash, but we do tend to disagree from time to time.

Take care,

Chas

[merrylander]

I wonder if they would like some cheese to go with the whine?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Charles

Now that's what I call a critique!!!

Myself, I thought is was an opposing viewpoint rather than hogwash, but we do tend to disagree from time to time.

Take care,

Chas

Yeah, but we can disagree agreeably. While I disagreed with the viewpoint of the article, the part of it to which I referred as hogwash was the suggestion that it was fact-checking when it was only propounding a different opinion. That was being more dishonest than it accused the subject of it's article as being.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Sandy G]

Well, y'know, whether we like it or not, we are STUCK w/using petroleum & petroleum products for running the world for the forseeable future. Instead of fighting w/each other, and rather pointlessly, we should try to do THE BEST WE CAN W/WHAT WE'VE GOT...Maybe, then, something else will turn up.

[piece-itpete]

No way Sandy. You've got to get 5,000 hamsters powering the Valdez NOW.



And they can't poop either.

Obaama needs a) a diversion and scapegoat and b) a reason to goose another part of his agenda.

Talk about enviromental damage, but a leaking well in ANWR would've been capped already.

BTW Chas, that is the most blatently partisan, muckracking, pope-abusing site I've ever laid eyes on.

Better? Lol.

ete

[Charles]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

No way Sandy. You've got to get 5,000 hamsters powering the Valdez NOW.



And they can't poop either.

Obaama needs a) a diversion and scapegoat and b) a reason to goose another part of his agenda.

Talk about enviromental damage, but a leaking well in ANWR would've been capped already.

BTW Chas, that is the most blatently partisan, muckracking, pope-abusing site I've ever laid eyes on.

Better? Lol.

ete

Go easy on them Pete, they're probably so mentally deficient that they even vote against their own best interests!!!

Chas

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Sandy G

Well, y'know, whether we like it or not, we are STUCK w/using petroleum & petroleum products for running the world for the forseeable future. Instead of fighting w/each other, and rather pointlessly, we should try to do THE BEST WE CAN W/WHAT WE'VE GOT...Maybe, then, something else will turn up.

Isn't that what we've been doing for decades? What do you suppose puts a drag on the advancement of alternate energy research? Lack of funding? Lack of a "Sense of Urgency"? Political Sabotage? All of the above, perhaps?

Dave

[Sandy G]

All of the above. Plus, the incredible infrastructure we have constructed over the last century or so to support petroleum. It ain't gonna go away overnite, nor will it be easy-or cheap-to replace. But being the filthy, greedy oligarchy they are, don't you think if there was a buck to be made offa it, the oil companies would be "Full Steam Ahead" into alternative energy resources ?